Women and Christian Leadership

Perhaps you’ve heard of the conflict between a seminary professor named Sheri Klouda and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary? Apparently Dr. Klouda was denied tenure because of- get this- her gender. You see, for SBTS, women are not permitted to teach men in theological courses.

When asked, Van McClain, the Seminary trustee board chairman, said the decision was made because Scripture prohibits women from teaching theological courses to males pursuing training for pastoral ministry.

I don’t know about you, but there are several concerns that immediately come to mind here:

1.) Do the relevant scripture verses about women and leadership really apply to seminary positions?

2.) Isn’t it rather contradictory for a seminary to hire a woman for such a position, and then turn around and exclude her because of- supposedly, long-standing scriptural positions?

3.) Then of course, there’s the issue of what the Bible has to say about woman and teaching/leadership in the first place. There certainly is no consensus on this issue. Overall, the lack of biblical clarity on the issue seems to be freeing up more and more room for women to exist in leadership positions- in a wide variety of Evangelical denominations. Of course the Southern Baptists are an exception to this trend.

With my background in the Vineyard, I’m happy to say that women have long been welcomed in positions of leadership. I remember a few years ago, when I was still living in Canada, the AVCC (Association of Vineyard Churches Canada) put together a biblical think-tank of sorts, to resolve the Association’s official perspective on the issue.

In the end, full permission was granted for women to take positions of leadership within the Vineyard in Canada. I remember having a conversation with Gary Best, National Director for the Vineyard in Canada (which is a separate entity from Vineyard USA) about the think-tank’s findings. I asked Gary: “So does this mean that a woman can hold a position as senior pastor?” Gary replied by saying, “Yes it does. In fact, the official AVCC position is that a woman could actually serve as National Director.” In other words, every position is open and available.

Again, I’m proud to come from such a tradition. For the women enduring in other denominations with far less “room to breathe”, all I can say is- as a brother, as an equal, I’m sorry. It’s sad that churches, denominations- and now Christian educational institutions- take such a stance; especially when the wide diversity of opinion on the issue demonstrates just how murky the biblical background is.

Does it make sense for us to hold back the calling of 50% of the population when the issue is as clouded as this one is? I think not. I think it is, in the truest sense of the word, a shame.





Christians Campaigning for Peace

I found it refreshing to hear that a group of Christians, numbered in the thousands, took part in an anti-war service at the Washington National Cathedral on Friday the 16th. The anti-war service served to kick off a weekend of protests, throughout America, to mark the 4th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war.

From my perspective, regardless of the where you come down on the concept of “just war”- and the Iraq war in general, it should be refreshing that Christians, many of whom are Evangelical in flavor, are finally offering their voice to the anti-war movement.

For too long now, American Christians, and again- specifically Evangelicals, have been portrayed as pro-rich, pro-war, solely pro-American, etc… I don’t think this characterization is necessarily fair- or accurate. But nevertheless, those are the connotations often connected to Evangelicals. Largely, I think this association has arisen as a result of the unfortunate volume of a few voices from the Religious Right; voices that claim to speak for the Evangelical community as a whole.

Again, regardless of where you come down on the issue of the Iraq war, I think we should applaud the fact that a real diversity of opinion amongst Evangelicals is now being heard. From that diversity of opinion can come a spirited debate (and I mean that with Holy Ghost connotations fully intended!) that engages us in the process of seeking healing and wholeness for our world.

It’s only with a diversity of opinion present, that individuals are actually brought into the conversation as active participants- called to wrestle with the issues themselves. And this is helpful in a two-fold way: 1.) It actually moves us towards a sense of shalom for the world, and 2.) It helps us to grow as individual disciples of Jesus- taking individual responsibility for the growing of Kingdom values on the earth.





The Religious Right, Global Warming, and the Art of Denial

You know, in the wake of the Ted Haggard scandal, you’d think the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) could use some good publicity. In fact, the Evangelical movement itself could use some positive news. But I guess when it rains it pours.

This week it came out that James Dobson, of Focus on the Family Fame, along with twenty plus other Evangelical “leaders”, were asking for the resignation of Reverend Richard Cizik from the National Association of Evangelicals. The reason? Dobson and others are frustrated with Cizik’s “relentless campaign” to educate and act upon the global warming crisis.

I am rarely surprised by the actions of the Religious Right- they’ve done too many bizarre and unChrist-like things for that to be the case anymore. However, on this one, I was sincerely stunned. To hear Dobson and others go on to suggest that it is inappropriate to make the global warming issue a Christian priority, because it is still a hotly debated topic amongst the scientific community- is.. well, quite honestly- hogwash.

As Al Gore’s recent film/book, An Inconvenient Truth pointed out, there really is vast consensus amongst the scientific community about the reality of global warming and the assumption that we humans are the chief cause. Which “scientists” are Dobson and others actually listening to?

I recently came across a fundamentalist Christian radio program that actually suggested that the root of global warming is not human activity, but rather the ongoing degredation of the natural world as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve.

Talk about your creative biblical application. Isn’t it a little too convenient to excuse all human folly by assigning it to the catch-all “fall of the world” bucket? It seems to me that this is a recipe for denying all culpability and responsibility on almost any issue.

Jerry Falwell, always good for a sensationalist quote or two, recently said: “"I am today raising a flag of opposition to this alarmism about global warming and urging all believers to refuse to be duped by these 'earthism' worshippers." Falwell went on to say that he believes the global warming issue is a tool of Satan being used to distract Christians from the work of spreading the gospel.

Oh my. What do you say to that one? If memory serves, the stewardship of the Earth is a God-given mandate, not a Satanic deception.

Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, the current scientific consensus is ultimately proven misguided, doesn’t our God-given commission to care for the Earth suggest it’s better to be found over-cautious rather than irresponsible? In other words, even if there is some room for doubt in the minds of some of these Religious conservatives, isn’t it better to err on the safe side? Because on this issue, the potential consequences are just too dire to play around with.

I have tried for a very long time to remain centrist when it comes to the Christian political spectrum. After all, being a follower of Jesus just doesn’t easily fit with society’s concepts of Right and Left. On one issue a Christ-inspired view could leave one labeled a liberal, whereas another issue could draw the conservative badge. I don’t really worry about the labels. Keeping one’s eyes focused on Jesus is the point. Besides, as the old song says about labels, “a rose by any other name is still a rose”.

However, all that is to say, the position of Dobson and others on this issue, and others, makes that “brothers one and all” position increasingly untenable. Such comments not only undermine our credibility in the larger culture, but they also put an ever-growing strain on the unity of the Body of Christ in America.





Biblical Idealism or Rogue Christianity?

One of the most compelling aspects of the interactivity of the Web is the back-and-forth that’s available when discussing a particular topic. An author can express a certain position, and then a variety of readers can join the debate by offering their feedback and their own perspectives on the issue. Things can come full circle when the original author is then able to respond to the feedback and offer clarity on his/her original statements.

Sometimes however, this online dialogue reveals certain peculiar assumptions that exist out in the blogosphere- and therefore within the larger Christian community. One particular trend I’ve picked up while reading feedback to various articles, is the tendency for Christians to say things like “Don’t listen to theologians, read the Bible!”. I came across one such instance this past week. In the feedback section to an article discussing perspectives on Hell, one commentator wrote “Who cares what the Church fathers have to say!? What does the Bible have to say? That’s all that matters.”

Talk about missing the point. Isn’t it obvious to people that the reason articles discussing various perspectives on Hell (and other contentious topics) exist, is because there IS NOT a clear, discernable biblical teaching on the issue? Even if one personally comes to the conclusion that a certain perspective can be gleaned from the Bible, surely the mere fact that the larger Christian community is divided on interpretation of the same issue, should suggest that the teaching is not as clear cut as you would like it to be. When such disagreement exists, shouldn’t we be honest about the fact that perhaps it is our own subjective lens that leads us to one conclusion over another?

I recently listened to a secular, call in talk radio show in which one particular caller said, “I don’t believe in organized religion, I believe in Jesus. And I use the Bible as the authority to teach me about him.” Isn’t that a kind of rogue Christianity? Or renegade faith? If the Bible- as a stand alone authority- is all we need for discerning truth, then why is there so much disagreement amongst various groups of Christians who all look to the same Bible for answers? Surely, if nothing else, this situation suggests that Church tradition, cultural norms, and personal history, all play a role in determining how we read the Bible. In other words, when we read the Bible, we bring a whole assortment of assumptions to the table, before we even crack a page.

Of course, in a postmodern world, this is no revelation. Subjectivity is a given. What amazes me is that, so many Christians, still trapped in modern assumptions, go around really believing that it is the Bible alone that shapes their entire worldview. Subjectivity happens. Let's be honest about it. That was as true in the first century as it is today in the 21st. To assume otherwise, unless you're Jesus himself, is to actually assume too much about one's own sanctity and one's own intellect.



Current from: January-February 2007 - November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005